01/16/2008
ACLU Defends Larry Craig's Right to Have Private Bathroom Sex
The ACLU filed a brief yesterday in support of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, arguing that those engaging in sexual conduct in restroom stalls should be able to expect privacy.
The AP reports: "[The ACLU] cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms 'have a reasonable expectation of privacy.' That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote...The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal. 'The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom,' the ACLU wrote in its brief. The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy."
Aside from the sheer absurdity of it, I'm not sure exactly how this argument would help Craig, since he has denied engaging in any sexual conduct.
Last week Craig filed a 27-page brief with the Minnesota Court of Appeals in an ongoing attempt to withdraw his guilty plea.
Previously
Larry Craig Files Appeal in Ongoing Quest to Withdraw Guilty Plea [tr]
A Holiday Visit to the Larry Craig Men's Room [tr]
Idaho Paper Out to Disprove Larry Craig's "I'm not gay" Claims [tr]
Posted 11:59 AM EST by Andy Towle in ACLU, Idaho, Larry Craig, Minneapolis, Minnesota, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
i just love that the photo you've chosen has some dude undoing his pants before he's even in the door of the bathroom! that toliet must give off one hell of a vibe!
Posted by: little edie | Jan 16, 2008 12:17:44 PM
It's not about helping Craig, it's about the legal implications. ACLU has a history of filing cases based on the legal implications and precedent despite the individuals involved.
Posted by: e | Jan 16, 2008 12:23:58 PM
i don't think the aclu was necessarily trying to make a case for craig, i think they were trying to make a case for ANYBODY that may get busted for fooling around in a stall of a public bathroom.
and since law enforcement agencies don't usually patrol bathrooms for heterosexual sex, unless they are targeting prostitutes, that would be us.
Posted by: reddevil | Jan 16, 2008 12:27:56 PM
Little Edie- you stole my fire!!
How many weeks have we been seeing that photo and i only NOW (DUR-hay!) notice what that guy in the photo is doing... or undoing, as the case may be. Too much!
Posted by: virgoboy | Jan 16, 2008 12:40:34 PM
i don't hate the act, i hate the hypocrite.
i am with the aclu on this. larry craig has been hoist by his own petard. he deserves the full impact of the laws he helped inact. the laws, however, are unjust.
Posted by: nic | Jan 16, 2008 12:40:41 PM
I love the irony of the entire Craig bust. It may actually help the homosexuals he despises so vehemently. Shining a bright national spotlight on the entrapment of gay men by police departments all over the U.S. Bravo to the ACLU, their brief may or may not help Senator “Wide Stance” but it may help to end unjust police practices that have been going on for years.
Posted by: ggreen | Jan 16, 2008 1:12:41 PM
So from what I'm gathering from what I have read in this article and the comments is this:
They aren't really defending Larry Craig but the right of someone to have sex in a public restroom.
I think the ACLU has made a bad mistake defending this. It's a restroom. I don't want to have anyone having sex in there while I'm going to the bathroom and I really don't want children to be exposed to anyone having sex. If you want to proposition someone that's fine but take it some place private.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 16, 2008 1:19:24 PM
Apparently the ACLU has taken a "wide stance" on this one and are on thin ice! Sex in a public bathroom where my kids could enter and observe is NOT an option. However, the ACLU is so accustomed to being OUT THERE that they cannot see reality. MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD PROBABLY BE OPPOSED TO SEX IN A PUBLIC BATHROOM THAN WOULD BE OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE. Just my opinion as there are no real numbers, but I cannot imagine this acceptable!
Posted by: RB | Jan 16, 2008 1:33:43 PM
I'm torn on this. I agree with Matt and RB that other people should not be subjected to this type of offensive behavior. I also agree with the point the ACLU is making that people in a closed bathroom do indeed have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Can I also say that as a gay person, I am humiliated that we need signs in our clubs and bars saying "one person at a time?" Or my old gym in LA which refused to have curtains on the showers because of all the sex. I hate that those without class ruin everything for the rest of us.
Posted by: Dan B | Jan 16, 2008 1:45:51 PM
I think the aclu knows that the Larry Craig bust really had no merit. The man's political career was ruined by a crooked police force that just so happened to be doing a sting at the exact time and place that Larry Craig was looking for sex, I don't buy it for a second, his only mistake was letting the police make him think he ACTUALLY DID something wrong and pleading guilty -the aclu knows whats up
Posted by: davey | Jan 16, 2008 1:52:05 PM
Once again, the ACLU is expending a lot of effort to make itself look absurd, and doing it in the name of someone who most certainly does not want their help or the attention it creates.
I used to agree with the ACLU a good chunk of the time, but those days are fading fast. They're constantly playing devil's advocate, and it's tiresome.
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 16, 2008 1:54:22 PM
MATT and RB,
you guys cannot be that obtuse. the ACLU is not defending indecency in public restrooms, it is fighting police harrassment and entrapment. a person should not be arrested for a lingering look or for more than a few shakes of the penis.
larry craig did not force himself on anyone. in that sense he is innocent. but, i have no pity for him for being a shameless hypocrite and for his helping to pass laws that allow this kind of police-state invasion of individual rights.
Posted by: nic | Jan 16, 2008 2:13:57 PM
Nic,
If you had read my post throughly I stated that there is nothing wrong with propositioning someone for sex. I said what is wrong is having sex in a public bathroom which Larry Craig was going to do before his flight. If Mr. Craig had propositioned the cop and said lets take it somewhere private, I would have no issue with that but he had all intentions of having sex with him in the restroom stall.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 16, 2008 2:29:10 PM
The ACLU needs better lawyers. The brief they filed has no bearing on LC's plea of guilty of invasion of privacy. There are two ideas here. The first is that it is okay to have sex in private. The second is that it is not okay to proposition someone for sex in public. Apparently the MSSC has already ruled on the latter point. The former, however...
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jan 16, 2008 3:18:53 PM
MATT,
how i hate larry craig and all he stands for (or doesn't stand for). nevertheless, what his intentions were are not at issue here. had he been caught having sex or had he forced himself on someone, then that would be against the law. an adult should not be arrested for his intentions (however construed) toward another adult.
Posted by: nic | Jan 16, 2008 3:36:04 PM
I am honestly shocked at some of the responses: "children may see them" "the curtains were removed because of the sex." Sheesh guys - that's the crux of this lawsuit - a curtain, a wall, a door, a bathroom stall all provide some reasonable expectation of "privacy." And as far as kids seeing "it," that's the same f-cking excuse they use about everything gay people do. Way to buy into the homophobic bullshit!
Posted by: shane | Jan 16, 2008 3:49:10 PM
"Way to buy into the homophobic bullshit"!
Shane, are you serious? I have bought into nothing. However, I am a parent of three ages 6, 8 and 11 and I have no intentions of them seeing anyone having sex in public whether gay or straight!!! It is NOT age apporpriate and never will be.
I would venture a guess that you have no children and with your current attitude hope that you don't. Get real...it is not appropriate for kids to observe adults having sex. And NO, A CLOSED STALL DOOR DOES NOT MEAN PRIVATE!!! Come on guys, open your eyes. This is one of the reasons that we are fighting for equality now!
Posted by: RB | Jan 16, 2008 4:19:06 PM
Sex-a-phobia. It rears its ugly head everywhere.
I've never been real interested in tearoom sex. And I don't particularly want to pee while people in the stall next to me have sex. But my world isn't going to come crashing down if it happens.
The ACLU is not arguing that people have a right to have sex in front of your children. But what is the fear of children knowing about -- or even hearing -- two adults having sex? Sex is what made them. They are quite likely to have sex later in their lives. Children in many cultures have grown up knowing about, hearing and even seeing adults engaging in sexual relations with other adults and generally ended up as happy and healthy human beings.
The fear, it seems to me, is an adult (and Victorian) one, specifically the fear of having your children be interested in, amused by and curious and questioning you about sex. There's no harm to a child in any of that. Unless their parent gets all awkward and uncomfortable and is unable to discuss it.
And, as for those of you carping about the the ACLU going too far in this case, it seems to me that you really misunderstand the entire point of the ACLU, which is to defend our civil liberties at the extremes - which is exactly where they matter, exactly where rights are lost if not defended, and exactly where you need an advocacy group dedicated to taking unpopular stands. The fact that most people wouldn't agree with the ACLU's position is a POSITIVE. We have constitutional rights to protect us from naked MAJORITY rule. No one needs the ACLU to protect rights we all agree on.
Posted by: Buster | Jan 16, 2008 5:06:31 PM
And people wonder why I love the ACLU. Its very good that they're doing this; because while Craig himself may be a horrible jerk, it's not illegal by any stretch, nor should it be.
Posted by: JJohnson | Jan 16, 2008 8:52:06 PM
I think the ACLU has more important issues to be focusing on, no? I didn't realize the right to fuck in the airport bathroom was one right we were really striving for... while the ACLU ignored a plea from a friend of mine to get joint custody of his children after being denied by a homophobic judge. No, let's make sure we get our cocks sucked in the bathroom, we'll worry about the kids later... fuckin idiots.
Posted by: Paul | Jan 16, 2008 9:40:36 PM
I see now that I reversed former and latter. Oops.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jan 17, 2008 3:47:59 AM
Public restrooms are not for sex. Kids use them, and they don't need to have life's lessons taught them by overhearing or observing closety men and women conducting in public what should be kept in private. I think having sex and soliciting sex in public restrooms should be illegal, and that we as a community should be more respectful of societal mores than Larry Craig.
Posted by: thepinkpenguin | Jan 19, 2008 3:08:17 AM